2005 Ford Gt Base Coupe 2-door 5.4l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Weekly Recap: GM posts solid profits, not looking for partners

General Motors is not looking for partners. It's big enough already. So says CEO Mary Barra, who shot down overtures from outspoken Fiat-Chrysler chief Sergio Marchionne this week. Barra said GM will look to find scale within its operations, rather than through outside partners. "We think there's tremendous opportunity for us within the business as we look at efficiency measures, as we look at truly achieving the scale that we should have, because we're already in that top tier of the auto industry among the largest OEMs," she said. Barra added: "We have a very well-articulated plan. We're in the middle of executing that, and we're not going to entertain anything that might distract us from accomplishing that." Her remarks came in the wake of Marchionne's provocative comments in March. He expects a wave of industry consolidation and said he's open to teaming with Ford or GM, calling it "technically feasible." Because of its smaller size, FCA would likely stand to gain more from a partnership than GM or Ford. The Blue Oval isn't interested in teaming with Fiat-Chrysler, either. "We have no other plan or interest then to continue to accelerate our One Ford plan, deliver product excellence and drive innovation in every part of our business," a spokesperson said. GM, the largest US automaker, announced a $945-million first-quarter profit on Thursday and posted its best earnings performance in North America since 2009. Earlier in the week, GM confirmed it had sold 2.4 million vehicles around the world in the quarter, ranking behind Toyota (2.52 million) and Volkswagen (2.49 million). Other News & Notes SUVs, EVs shine at Shanghai Motor Show SUVs and electric vehicles grabbed the spotlight at the Shanghai Motor Show this week as companies vied for attention in the world's largest car market. Notably, Honda's Concept D previewed the company's future flagship SUV that's being developed for China, Mercedes rolled out a BMW X4-fighting GLC Coupe concept and Chinese company Qoros debuted its 2 plug-in SUV concept. Nissan, Volvo and several others also showcased utility vehicles in Shanghai. Automakers are rushing to take advantage of the crossover craze in China. The market for locally-produced SUVs grew 50 percent in the first quarter, according to IHS Automotive research, which called the show a "launch pad" for new utility vehicles. Even though SUVs are popular, IHS predicts their growth rate will slow, and sedans account for more sales volume in China.

Moon landing anniversary: How Detroit automakers won the space race

America's industrial might — automakers included — determined the outcome of the 20th centuryÂ’s biggest events. The “Arsenal of Democracy” won World War II, and then the Cold War. And our factories flew us to the moon. Apollo was a Cold War program. You can draw a direct line from Nazi V-2 rockets to ICBMs to the Saturn V. The space race was a proxy war — which beats a real war. It was a healthy outlet for technology and testosterone that would otherwise be used for darker purposes. (People protested, and still do, that money for space should go to problems here on Earth, but more likely the military-industrial complex would've just bought more bombs with it.) As long as we and the Soviet Union were launching rockets into space, we were not lobbing them at each other. JFKÂ’s challenge to “go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard,” put American industry back on a war footing. We were galvanized to beat the Russians, to demonstrate technological dominance. (A lack of similar unifying purpose is why we havenÂ’t been to the moon since, or Mars.) NASA says more than 400,000 Americans, from scientists to seamstresses, toiled on the moon program, working for government or for 20,000 contractors. Antagonism was diverted into something inspirational. The Big Three automakers were some of the biggest companies in the moon program, which might surprise a lot of people today. Note to a new generation who marveled when SpaceX launched a Tesla Roadster out into the solar system: Sure, that was neat, but just know that Detroit beat Elon Musk to space by more than half a century. This high point in human history was brought to you by Ford ItÂ’s hard to imagine in this era of Sony-LG-Samsung, but Ford used to make TVs. And other consumer appliances. Or rather Philco, the radio, TV and transistor pioneer that Ford bought in 1961 — the year Gagarin and Alan Shepard flew in space. Ted Ryan, FordÂ’s archives and heritage brand manager, just wrote a Medium article on the central role Philco-Ford played in manned spaceflight. And nothingÂ’s more central than Mission Control in Houston, the famous console-filled room we all know from TV and movies. What we didn't know was, that was Ford. Ford built that. In 1953, Ryan notes, Philco invented a transistor that was key to the development of (what were then regarded as) high-speed computers, so naturally Philco became a contractor for NASA and the military.

EPA says fuel economy test for hybrids is accurate

The EPA says it stands behind its fuel economy test for hybrid vehicles following controversy about the testing process after Ford C-Max Hybrid customers and automotive journalists alike struggled to achieve 47 miles per gallon, the advertised mpg number, Automotive News reports. Ford responded to the issue almost two weeks ago by claiming that a 1970s-era EPA general label rule was responsible for the inaccurate mileage numbers, rerating the C-Max Hybrid's mpg numbers and offering customers rebates. Ford later said it didn't overstate the C-Max Hybrid's fuel economy and that it was surprised by the low numbers.
Ford technically didn't do anything wrong because it was following the general label rule, but agency regulator Christopher Grundler says the automaker was exploiting a loophole when it came up with the hybrid C-Max numbers, and that the testing process remains accurate. The general label rule allows vehicles that use the same engine and transmission and are in the same weight class to share fuel economy numbers, but it doesn't take into account other factors such as aerodynamic efficiency, which affects hybrids more drastically than non-hybrid vehicles. Ford originally used the Fusion Hybrid economy figures for the C-Max Hybrid and claimed the engineers didn't realize that its aerodynamic efficiency would affect fuel economy as much as it did.